RAJIV GUPTA Vs. RAM PHAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-Ram Phal Gupta filed petition under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 1'the Act'), for ejectment of revision-petitioners (tenant) from the shop bearing no. 1542, Ward No. 17, Rohtak on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the shop by his son and subletting. Learned Rent Controller, Rohtak allowed the petition and the appeal filed by the revision-petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak. Not satisfied, the revision-petitioners have filed this petition seeking setting aside of order passed by learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision-petitioners has argued that ejectment of petitioners from the demised premises has been sought on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the son of respondent-landlord, but he was not examined as witness. This fact was proved on record that son of the respondent was employed as director of a diamond company, as such, was gainfully employed, but was not properly appreciated by learned Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority. The son of respondent-landlord is presently residing at Delhi and owns property at Rohtak, these facts were concealed. In case son of the respondent-landlord had appeared as witness he could be cross-examined about his need, income and business which he is carrying out and his requirement of demised premises.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has argued that petitioners have placed on file income tax returns of son of the respondent as Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-7. He was not having any income from the diamond company of which he is a director. The petition was filed in the year 2008 and during the last ten years, it is not expected that son of the respondent will remain idle and earn no livelihood to feed his family. The need of the respondent and his son as it existed at the time of filing of petition is a relevant factor to be seen and learned Courts below have rightly held that the demised premises is required for the personal bona fide need of son of the respondent.